Skip to main content

About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
on a wide range of issues, including u.s.-russia relations and likely the nsa surveillance programs. indications are that he will make some sort of statement of the top of the news conference and it is likely to be about the nsa. the new york times" says at resident plans to launch new efforts. the president is endorsing a new policy panel to review surveillance powers. independent attorney to argue against the government before the surveillance courts. so some of the things that we're likely to hear but as the resident begins the news conference this afternoon. it will -- as the president begins the news conference this afternoon. after the news conference is done, we plan to open up our phones than hear from you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] afternoon, everybody, please have a seat. over the past few weeks, i have been talking about what i believe should be our priorities for the country. i am focused on the number one responsibility as commander-in- chief, keeping the american people safe. in rece
broad new powers in 2008. "the washington post" made the analysis after getting documents from former n.s.a. analyst edward snoweden, now congress is getting involved. short time ago we talked with a reporter fouling this story. -- following this story. >> we are joined by jenifer martinez of the hill. why is judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy calling for another round of hearings on the n.s.a.? >> he's doing that in the wake of report that was published by "the washington post" late thursday, that n.s.a. had repeatedly broken privacy rules or overstepped its authority for years. soleil he came out today with -- so lie he came out with a statement today saying he remains concerned that congress is still not getting straightforward answers from the n.s.a., so he hopes to hold another hearing when congress returns to get these answers. >> how bad was this report that the "washington post" published on thursday? > it's definitely pret i damning. ust adds -- it would put the administration in even worse position than it was with the surveillance program. it also calls into question the
obama spoke about a range of issues including surveillance programs at nsa and u.s./russian relations. this is about 55 minutes. >> good afternoon. these have a seat. over the past few weeks thomas i've been talking about what i believe should be our number one priority in the country. building a better bargain for the middle class and for americans who want to work your way into the middle class. at the same time i am focused on my number one priority -- keeping the american people safe. been reminded once again about the threats to our nation. as i said at the national defense university, and meeting those threats we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and our freedoms. as part of this rebalancing, i called for review of our surveillance programs. unfortunately, rather than orderly and lawful process, the , repeated leaks of classified information has initiated the debate in a very passionate but not always informed way. i held a healthy skepticism of these programs as a senator and as president i have taken steps to make sure that they have strong overs
every website every american goes to? must be the n.s.a. i attended a classified briefing, i can't go into anything there, but it appeared before the briefing very clear to me and i still feel this way, that when you blind yourself as to who the enemy is, as we have, purging all kinds of material from our f.b.i. training materials, state department, intelligence materials, as to who radical islamists really are and what they believe, you blind our law enforcement, our security people from the ability to see your enemy. we're not protected. when you have an open border where people are coming across at will and border patrolmen have told us three to four times faster than they ever have since we started talking about handing out legal status to anybody who happened to be here by a certain date, all this talk about amnesty, citizenship, all these other things, do they get benefits? not get benefits? all this talk has increased the number of people coming in by about three to five times. the border is not secure. when you don't control what kind of terrorists may be coming into your coun
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4